BEATING WAR DRUMS BEFORE THE ELECTION: WILL 2008 BE A RERUN OF 2002?

This Guardian story isn't surprising at all, obviously:

Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran

The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.

...A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."

...The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively....

And if this happens, guess when it'll happen:

No decision on military action is expected until next year.

Hmmm ... I wonder when next year that'll be. Could we be looking a rollout of the war plan just as the election approaches?

Karl Rove's name isn't mentioned in the Guardian story, but even as the Bush presidency collapses, Rove just keeps playing the oldies -- not just "Iraq = Al Qaeda," but also adorable moppets playing T-ball on the White House lawn (the T-ball game that took place yesterday, involving teams from Brooklyn and L.A. wearing Jackie Robinson's uniform number, became a soft news story even here in Bush-hating New York). So why wouldn't Rove be involved in the scheduling of the upcoming attack on Iran? And if he thinks all those other old tricks can still fool the rubes, why wouldn't he think this one could work again, too? Why wouldn't he think the Bushies could use fear to help elect Republicans in '08?

If nothing else, it's possible Rove is thinking that saber-rattling on Iran in the run-up to the election will compel the Democratic nominee to support a resolution authorizing force -- which might drive anti-war voters to a third-party candidate like Ralph Nader, while (if Rove's scheme works) not impressing the GOP base and security moms, who'll regard it as a me-too response to those far more manly Republicans. Of course, the two Democratic front-runners, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have at times talked tough about Iran, so they probably would, alas, allow themselves to be suckered into supporting a use-of-force resolution.

So, yeah, I think Rove is counting on the fact that the public can still fall for this kind of boob bait.

And I wish I were sure he was wrong.

****

And yes, obviously the Lieberman amendment on Iran would be part of this GOP process of backing the '08 Democratic nominee into a corner ("Last year, my opponent voted to condemn Iranian aggression, yet now...").